posted 01-02-2003 11:54 AM            

Happy New Year to all, especially to you Nate!!
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/medicine/article/0,12543,330051,00.html

posted 01-02-2003 03:27 PM            

I think in light of recent events everyone is scarmbling to come up with some way to tell truth from lie quickly and accuratley.

I have even heard of some very strange sounding apparatus's that are being tried.

I know alot of examiners out there feel that the NAS report is the end of polygraph. I don't agree. It should sound a very loud wake up call that we have to progress and try to find means of reducing error rates. We as professionals, have to keep trying to do a better job. Even if nothing changes in Polygraph we can't be satisfied with the product we now have.

If we don't work hard to do our best on every test or continue to learn and improve our skill level WE will kill Polygraph as sure as the sun comes up.

Hasn't it always been the poor test or improper test that has hurt us all? The examiners who don't spend time analysing their charts but just rush through them because they already know if the person is lying or not. The examiner who likes a technique but feels with some changes he can make it better.

We can correct alot of the flaws in our profession but we have to do it together. We have to work together through Associations and what ever means possible to do the best job on each test.

We have to standardize, and we are working on it. Shame on you if you don't belong to ASTM. We have to keep up with the profession through seminars and Association meetings. Most of all we have to stop doing things we know are questionable or that might cause controversy. Especially if the research tells us it is a bad idea.

If you are using a technique that can be supported by research, do it the way it is supposed to be done, don't deviate. That way you have the backing of the research. Always use the comparison questions that are recommended. For example, if the technique you use does not allow for directed lie comparisons don't use them. The research is based on very specific formats that can't be deviated from. Research done with out directed lie comparisons may not have the same results if they were used.

We all have a responsablity to keep the profession moving in a positive direction. I bet we all know examiners who have "tweaked" their test because it works better for them. We all know examiners who get little or no continuing education. Those are flaws in Polygraph we can and should correct but as with all things, it seems as though only a small number of people are trying to do all the work for everyone.

Kind of like this bulletin board, I know alot more people read it than respond to it. Lets here from you, the silent majority. Get involved, if nothing else join or start a discussion. Let your opinion, view or complaint be heard. Who knows you might have a key to the future of polygraph.

Jack

posted 01-07-2003 10:31 PM            

The NAS report took some wind out of our sales but I really do see their point and find that after 35 years of testing I differentiate between utility testing and "polygraph examinations." I pretty much restrict the latter to a bi-spot zone with two relevants and three comparisons. I find it gives me the lowest number of inconclusives and false positives. This is important to me because of the number of "high profile" exams that come my way. I would rather run two back to back zones than mix issues. More often than not mixing issues has gotten me into trouble or caused an inconclusive. I screen for 7 police agencies and my report simply says there was significant, consistent physiological change at question X. I don't call screenings lie detector tests nor do I say the person was lying. I have been able to defend the report in court by simply pointing out the physiological changes that appeared twice during the examination.

I commend the researchers who are looking for a better process and since I don't manufacture polygraphs I am open to using any new technique or instrument as long as I can provide my clients with scientifically valid studies showing the technique I used has demonstrated validity and reliability.

So there. I am not a "lurker."

Ed Gelb

posted 01-08-2003 07:30 AM            

I also prefer the U-Phase (Bi- Zone)test. Why look for questions when you don't need them?

Is anyone out there reading this working for LAPD? Roy if its you great, if its someone else you might want to check with Roy before answering. I was wondering, now that you are doing pre-employment tests what format you decided to use? What are you asking and do you numerically score you tests? Being one of the largest departments doing pre-employment screenings you will soon be sitting on a wealth of information on these types of tests. Can you fill us in a little on how you got to where you are and how is it working out for you? Also I was wondering if your department had any second thoughts after the NAS report.

Thanks in advance for any answers and Ed, keep lurking and giving your input.

Jack